>passages like Genesis 31:38, 41 in the LXX, which from all references

>I've seen are indisputable uses of "eimi" as a historical present.

Sorry to everyone else if I'm dredging up old news, but I don't see how
you can think that John 14:9 is a historical present unless you redefine
"historical present" to be something completely different than the normal
definition. Have you read Turner's <italic>Syntax</italic>, page 62? I'm
sure all of Wallace's students have. Turner lists this passage as a
present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and
up to the moment of speaking. How could it be read otherwise?

>I would think that a scholar like Wallace would know these passages

>far better than an amateur such as myself.

Somehow, I think he does.

I'd also like to add my comments about Dan Wallace as a person. Is he
opinionated? Good grief yes! Does he lack integrity? Absolutely not. In
fact, when I think of all the people I have met on my life's journey, Dan
rates very high on my list of people <italic>with </italic>integrity.